This collection of essays originated as a series of lectures delivered by Luce Irigaray at Erasmus University in Rotterdam during the second semester of 1982, when she was serving as the Jan Tinbergen Chair of Philosophy. By this time, Irigaray’s controversial writing on the subjects of language, psychoanalysis, and gender were already well known, and the lectures contained in this book expand on her previously published ideas regarding the connection between language, culture, and women’s place or lack of place in society. Her style of writing is highly unusual, combining elements of traditional literary theory and analysis with extremely unusual methods of composition. Irigaray uses strange punctuation, a multitude of hyphenated and created words, sentence fragments, and other grammatical techniques in an attempt to use what she regards as a flawed instrument, language, to contain her sometimes radical ideas.
Irigaray begins her first essay, “Sexual Difference,” by describing why the work of understanding sexual difference is so important to the modern world. She describes the role of God in most patriarchal societies as the creator of all space, in which time operates, which means that God is time itself, operating within the space created. Therefore, God is the only creature conceived of as beyond time, and God is always male in patriarchal societies. This is not helpful to the woman who seeks to find her identity, so something new must be found. Irigaray states that the constitution of a sexual ethics would require a return to what French philosopher René Descartes called the first passion, wonder. The rediscovery of wonder between man and woman—being able to look at the other sex as though one does not already know all about them—would be an important first step in the new sexual ethics Irigaray wishes to create.
In the second essay, “Sorcerer Love,” Irigaray provides a reading of Plato’s Symposion (c. 388-368 b.c.e.; Symposium, 1701), particularly “Diotoma’s Speech,” to show how women are denied the use of language. Diotoma does not speak but is spoken for, yet she manages to introduce a new ethic that stands in opposition to the traditional dialectical model. Diotoma rejects all certainty, including the certainty of language itself. Diotoma also realizes that love’s real importance...
(The entire section is 479 words.)
Essay 5, “Wonder,” is Irigaray’s reading of René Descartes’s Les Passions de l’âme (1649; The Passions of the Soul, 1950), in which she returns to the idea of wonder as the essential element lacking in people’s modern understanding of the passions. If man and woman were again able to inspire surprise and wonder so that people felt as if they were seeing something eternally new, sexual ethics would be favorably altered. Wonder provides the appetite to appreciate the other without preconceived knowledge, and wonder inspires a sort of reverence. Wonder could provide the essential third element now lacking between men and women in all their relations with each other.
Essay 6, “The Envelope,” is Irigaray’s reading of Baruch Spinoza’s Ethica (1677; Ethics, 1870) in which she examines the concept of God. In her view (and her choice of pronouns), God exists on its own with no outside agency predicating it. Man also has a creator/created relationship with woman because woman as mother is the container from which man arises and woman as lover is the location of the man’s image of himself. Therefore, woman’s effort is exhausted in providing identity for man, first as his mother and then as his lover. By reconsidering the roles of both, Irigaray suggests that men and women could be given wider scope.
Essay 7, “Love of Same, Love of Other,” states that love of self among women, particularly...
(The entire section is 434 words.)
Essay 8, “An Ethics of Sexual Difference,” examines the myth of Antigone. Like Antigone, woman has traditionally been walled up in a small space and deprived of a voice to speak because she upsets the male balance of the world, represented by Creon. Irigaray is convinced this is the present-day status of woman because the so-called universal is really the male element, and women have been completely removed. There is not even a neuter space, only the male and the not-male that woman represents. This is also true in science, though science purports to be objective and neutral. Science does not speak to women, Irigaray asserts, because the language of scientific discourse does not allow it to; that language is and always has been male. This language is like air, which is the most essential element of all life but which is constantly completely ignored by most living beings. She indicates that people must again begin to think about air—and about all the unquestioned and unnoticed assumptions of language—more directly in order to arrive at a new sexual ethics that is workable.
Essay 9, “Love of the Other,” attempts to pin down even more directly the hidden effects of sexism in language. Irigaray suggests that people think they control language, but in fact, it controls them by limiting how and what they are able to think, to talk, or to write about. Making reference to her own study of the utterances of mentally disturbed men and women and linguistic studies of students, Irigaray points out that men tend to make remarks that are self-referential, whereas women tend to make remarks entirely referential to the outside world. These two examples show the differences in how men and women view themselves in society. Irigaray assumes that women are trying to gain access to discourse—by use of the women’s movement and other methods—but the dichotomy between thought and the feminine remains constant in Western culture. Removing this distinction would benefit both women and men immensely by opening up alternate realities to them, across which real communication would be possible for the first time.
Essay 10, “The Invisible of the Flesh,” is a reading of Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s Le Visible et l’invisible (1964; The Visible and the Invisible, 1968). Irigaray states her agreement with Merleau-Ponty that, in order to come to some meaningful understanding of the world, people must return to a moment of experience that predates language. By doing so, people can get a new understanding of all things because language is the primary method by which people think and understand or believe that they understand. However, language is circular in that it always returns to itself as an ultimate reference. Therefore, some other path to knowledge must be found. According to both Merleau-Ponty and Irigaray, this prediscursive moment would be achieved through touch and also the look, which is a variant of touch. She equates this knowledge acquired by touching with Original Sin because Adam and Eve were warned not only not to eat of the forbidden fruit but also not to touch it as well. She suggests that perhaps the male interpretation of God, which has so often equated touch with evil carnality, is at fault in our lack of attention to this knowing that is acquired by touch. Man has traditionally claimed the privilege of the look in Western culture, but Irigaray suggests that this is illusory and that women have special access to the knowledge of touch by virtue of their status as mothers and lovers.
The eleventh and final essay, “The Fecundity...
(The entire section is 593 words.)
Chanter, Tina. Ethics of Eros: Irigaray’s Rewriting of the Philosophers. New York: Routledge, 1995. Chanter provides an informative overview of Irigaray’s use of traditional Western philosophical texts and how these texts serve as a basis for her language analysis while she provides new insight to these well-known works.
Mortley, Raoul. French Philosophers in Conversation: Levinas, Schneider, Serres, Irigaray, LeDoeuff, Derrida. New York: Routledge, 1991. In chapter 4 of this text, Irigaray provides her answer to the author’s two questions about the importance of sexual difference in language. Her answers help illuminate many of the chief ideas found in An Ethics of Sexual Difference and give a brief overview of her ideas on language and sexuality in general.
Nordquist, Joan. French Feminist Theory (III): Luce Irigaray and Helen Cixous. Social Theory: A Bibliographic Series 44. Santa Cruz, Calif.: Reference and Research Services, 1996. This publication provides an exhaustive list of all material relating to Irigaray available in English as of the date of its publication, including books, essays, interviews, dissertations and theses, articles, and keyword-in-title indices.
Ross, Stephen David. Plenishment in the Earth: An Ethic of Inclusion. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995. This text examines several of Irigaray’s texts in detail and is interesting because it provides a male response to many of her theories, which is relatively unusual because most of the theorists and critics who study her are women. The book also attempts to place her in the context of several other important women philosophers of the twentieth century, as well as more traditional male thinkers.
Whitford, Margaret. Introduction to The Irigaray Reader, by Luce Irigaray. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1991. Whitford’s introduction gives those unfamiliar with Irigaray’s works an excellent starting point for these difficult texts, portions of which are provided in English.